What would you say?
What would you say if two coroners testifying at a trial, one for the prosecution and one for the defense, both had worked for the various government investigations of the JFK assassination and both supporting the "single-bullet theory"? What would you think if the people testifying against your character at a trial were the son of the former director of the CIA, and the son's wife, whose father was found dead floating in the Potomac's backwaters during that trial? What would you say if a vital piece of evidence was confirmed as genuine by a school that was the center of a campus controversy about using school funds to train people to forge documents for the CIA? What would you think if the two lead detectives at a crime scene, in violation of standard procedure, blocked someone from the coroner's office from taking the internal temperature of the two victims (which helps determine the time of death) until after the bodies had cooled to ambient temperature? What would you think if the actual coroner, who had shown in his examination that the bodies had received ornamental wounds after death and that the bodies had been moved around, was prohibited from testifying at the trial? What would you say if the prosecutor called an important witness, and on direct suborned perjury? What would you think if the guy who would potentially provide an alibi for the aforementioned perjured witness had himself badgered witnesses in another famous case and misquoted what they said to him. And what if this badgering police official had a background in working for the CIA?
Just asking.
Comments
I would say tell me more,
or find a safe place to hide.
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
I know which
lawyer I'd hire. Good luck!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Thanks for your post on the unresolved JFK assassination
If you haven't already, I highly recommend "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James W. Douglass. From the Amazon website:
"The acclaimed book Oliver Stone called “the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance,” JFK and the Unspeakable details not just how the conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy was carried out, but WHY it was done…and why it still matters today.
At the height of the Cold War, JFK risked committing the greatest crime in human history: starting a nuclear war. Horrified by the specter of nuclear annihilation, Kennedy gradually turned away from his long-held Cold Warrior beliefs and toward a policy of lasting peace. But to the military and intelligence agencies in the United States, who were committed to winning the Cold War at any cost, Kennedy’s change of heart was a direct threat to their power and influence. Once these dark “Unspeakable” forces recognized that Kennedy’s interests were in direct opposition to their own, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor, plotted his assassination, and orchestrated the subsequent cover-up.
Douglass takes readers into the Oval Office during the tense days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, along on the strange journey of Lee Harvey Oswald and his shadowy handlers, and to the winding road in Dallas where an ambush awaited the President’s motorcade. As Douglass convincingly documents, at every step along the way these forces of the Unspeakable were present, moving people like pawns on a chessboard to promote a dangerous and deadly agenda.
JFK and the Unspeakable shot up to the top of the bestseller charts when Oliver Stone first brought it to the world’s attention on Bill Maher’s show. Since then, it has been lauded by Mark Lane (author of Rush to Judgment, who calls it “an exciting work with the drama of a first-rate thriller”), John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, who proclaims it is “arguably the most important book yet written about an American president), and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who calls it “a very well-documented and convincing portrait…I urge all Americans to read this book and come to their own conclusions.”
Betty Clermont
Betty- this book sounds interesting.
Two books I would highly recommend that cover the JFK issue are The Devils Chessboard (a history of the CIA since its inception... the Dulles brothers etc.) and Family of Secrets by Russ Baker (the Bush family history, including Papa Bush's secret life as a CIA agent).
Both books are well researched and sold very well. They both point to the role of the CIA in the Kennedy assassination. Yes, JFK pissed off the wrong people. So did MLK and Robert Kennedy. If anyone thinks our Presidents run our country, they are wrong.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Thanks for the referrals, Fishtroller02 n/t
Betty Clermont
Wonderful comment, Betty
Thanks for the summary of JFK and the unspeakable. I have had this book for years and keep forgetting to listen to it. It is next up when I get out of my funk and stop listening to the same book over and over.
Hell if the ptb can murder a president in broad daylight then it was a no brainer that they would try to say that Trump was tied to Putin to once again push the Cold War rhetoric. Sadly the people that should have sawn through the scam fell for it hard and hook line and sinker. Sawn? (Okay need some help here. How da hell ya spell it? Is it a word? It's morning!)
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
"seen"
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Bless you
No I was not raised in a barn and my granma did everything she could to make sure I could speak properly. I had to keep asking if me and Bwuce could go play at the pawk. She kept asking WHO? It was may Bwuce and I go to the pawk and play? Lots of grammar and sentencing learnin during the years I lived with her. I have no excuse for SAWN. It is seen.
I used to be in a class with kids that couldn't say S without the TH in it. I couldn't understand why I was there. Mom looked at me and asked me to say Park. Pawk. What's your point?
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
"Pawk" is something you roast or fry!
Or is that "poke"?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Not when you can’t say your R's
I thought that was obvious that I couldn’t say them properly but didn’t realize that I wasn’t. Still have problems when you’re talking about the rest of the wide river.
It comes out. The west of the ride wiver. Too many R's in a sentence and I’m lost. But now and then I call Sam, Tham.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Sorry
I didn't mean to mock your affliction. I was joking about regional accents.
I thought that was what you had.
I have a grandson who has speech problems despite speech therapy when he was young,
Please accept my apology!
EDIT:
I'm sure Sam loves you even if you call him/her Evelyn.
I'm very sorry to have poked old wounds.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Oh you didn’t mock me
No I tell that story with tongue in cheek because I just didn’t realize I couldn’t say my R's.
And it’s more like this.
West of the wide wiver over on the wight side. I was a tad conscious about saying something out loud if it had too many R's. I just knew what I’d say and just freeze. Now my friends just smile and don’t call it out.
We cool.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Yikes!
Good reason to invent the term "conspiracy theory"
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-M0CfATkIY&list=PLliKyYEHHXuwadURx-23Ft...
DKMich recommended this film. I liked it too.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Would say that person's life intersected with
the unseen legal, political and capitalist systems in our country/world while they still believed the USA was justice, truth and all men are equal before the law. The scary peek behind Oz's curtain.
Probably had career effected since proven in court a "liar". Besides what rational person would believe such a story related to the ultimate conspiracy theory. JFK assassination was not more complicated than a single shooter. Personal relationships of friends and family may have been altered. Hard to reconcile your friend or relative's description of an event in not exaggerated and still faithfully believe in the official narrative. It is much easier to label them as not stable mentally.
Might find the site Screaming Ospreys by John OLouglin interesting. He is sharing his journey to understand the truth of his father's life and death.
Over the past few years he has collected information using the Freedom of Information Act which was not available in earlier books. It is pretty interesting. Some of the books he has referenced caused me reflect on individuals and events I experienced as a child growing up. Looking at them with adult eyes and knowledge is more complicated than child's memory and opinions.
Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.
That, my fellow travelers, was the OJ Simpson trial
I would guess that, a quarter century after it happened, everyone besides myself and my dog assumes that OJ Simpson was guilty. That was how the mainstream media immediately viewed it. From the left, from the right, there was an assumption.
My dog may just be agreeing with me because she thinks she needs to be on my good side.
As badly as a massive framing of an innocent man, the bigger question is why the government would do this.
I keep sayin’, everywhere you look, the system is rigged.
In the dominant culture and sociology of North America, that’s just the way various built-in perverse incentives and immunities work.
Um, I’ll show myself out now, gotta go mash some taro (I wish—if only).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumpy_Kanahele
The Mother of Fake News
That Oswald and Oswald alone killed President Kennedy.
Somewhere there's a montage of the 22 Parkland hospital employees who attended JFK's admission. They are each demonstrating a head wound at the right back of the skull, and about fist-sized.
I can't find that image now; wish I had saved it. The official autopsy photo shows no such damage; a fact that shows an illustration of conspiracy in itself.
Still think MSM needs to be forced to admit conspiracy in this case.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Why frame OJ?
Yes, this was about the OJ Simpson double homicide case.
The two coroners were Werner Spitz and Michael Baden, appearing on either side at Simpson's civil trial. Neither one mentioned the obvious prosecution problems in the criminal trial. In the criminal trial Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran testified in place of Dr. Irwin Golden, who wasn't allowed to testify because he allegedly waved a toy gun in his office.
If you recall, Simpson claimed the picture of him wearing Bruno Magli shoes was a fake. In the civil trial a whole "roll of film" of him walking in Bruno Magli shoes was entered into evidence. Robert Groden (another familiar face from the JFK case) contended that the photos were all fakes. But an expert from the Rochester Institute of Technology's School of Imaging said otherwise. RIT's imaging school, has been the location where the CIA trained students in making things like fraudulent passports, desks with hidey holes. That kind of thing.In the 80s and 90s this was a constant source of students protesting to get the CIA off campus. Faking photos of a pair of shoes would be easy for them, especially with the advent of digital photography. The month that the murders occurred, in June of 1994, there was a featured front-page article in Scientific American about how easily photographs could be faked with this new technology.
Two of the early witnesses in the trial were Catherine Boe and her husband, Carl Colby. They both testified that OJ Simpson was seen stalking around Nicole Simpson's Gretna Green home. Carl's dad William, former Director of Central Intelligence, died of an "apparent" boating accident in the Potomac's backwaters during the trial.
The two LAPD detectives who led the case were Tom Lange and William Vannater. By police procedure as soon as possible when bodies are found someone from the coroner's office, in this case the Coroner's Investigator, takes the internal temperatures of the bodies to calculate the time of death. This was very important in this case because no one witnessed the murders. But the two detectives decided, against regulations, to prevent the Coroner's Investigator from taking the body temperatures until they had reached ambient temperature, making it impossible to determine the time of death. How to determine the time of death? The coroner's investigator at the scene gave a phone call to Nicole's parents the morning after the murders. Mr. Brown, who talked with the investigator in his wife's presence, said that they had talked with their daughter a little after eleven p.m., when they arrived home from their dinner with Nicole at the Mezzaluna Restaurant. Curiously, in the weeks that followed Mr. Brown came into the LADA's office a wrote a statement changing the time when he last talked with his daughter. How could the father of a murder victim, less than twelve hours after he had talked to her on the phone, knowing that when she was alive would help to determine the time of death, get her time of death wrong by an hour and a half?
The LADA's office could have gotten the LUDs (local usage details) of the Brown's phone easily. Instead, the dogged prosecutor Marcia Clark went to the phone company on the Fourth of July where someone supplied her with a partial list of calls from the Browns' phone.
Back to the autopsies performed by Dr. Golden. Nicole's body presented a couple of curious findings. The wound that prosecution witnesses presumed was the mortal wound was a massive throat slash that was so deep it nicked the spinal cord as well as bissecting the epiglottis. The curious finding is that there was no blood in Nicole Simpson's lungs. When a person fighting for their lives has her throat slashed the body continues to inhale and exhale, but instead of inhaling air they inhale blood. A cut throat squirts blood all over at a high pressure, but even with the epiglottis not blocking the oral cavity no blood squirted into the mouth, or the sinus cavity. In short, the gross throat slash could not have been the cause of death but rather delivered after death.
There was another curious wound to Ron Goldman's corpse. Among his knife wounds was a stab wound in his back that punctured his femoral artery, the main artery for bringing blood to the lower part of the body. The stab wound was inside a body cavity, where, when someone dies of such a wound, the blood still pumping through the victim's body would pool up in that cavity until the victim bled to death. There was only about a cup of blood in the cavity, so once again this wound was performed after the victim's blood had stopped pumping through his heart, i.e., both victims were dead when these wounds were delivered. Goldman's back wound presents another problem. If Simpson had murdered Goldman how was Goldman's body found propped against a tree stump? Did Simpson fight off Goldman after he stabbed him and then prop his body up? None of this fits in with Marcia Clark's theory of the case. OJ Simpson, or any other murderer would not stick around the scene of the crime to make a tableaux by moving and manipulating the bodies.
However, both victims had punctures of their carotid arteries on the side of their necks. This may not mean much to the average person, but when a mortician prepares a body for burial the blood is drained from the body through such an incision. This suggests that the two were killed, their blood drained from their bodies and then ornamental wounds were made on the bodies. Some observers found the blood on the stairs were Ms. Simpson was found appeared to have been poured and in some places appeared to flow upward.
This means that if this information had been explicated in front of a jury and a national television audience the myth of OJ Simpson might have ended there. If Mr. Brown hadn't changed the time he talked with his daughter from after eleven to an hour and a half earlier, then the limo drive he took to LAX, starting a little before 11, would have been his alibi.
In pre-trial hearings Clark moved to block the coroner's investigator's report. Judge Ito obliged.
One other thing. Before a prosecution witness gives her or his direct testimony the prosecutor rehearses the questions and the responses with that witness. The first lesson in trial witnesses is to never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
So when Clark first asked Detective Mark Fuhrman where he was on the evening of the murder he said he was at a convention of the Police Protective League (LA's police union) at a resort about 120 miles from LA. He said that there was a barbeque of the cops after their union business had been completed and he left early, around ten pm, to drive home. There are problems here as well. The last meeting at the convention (probably the wrong word, as they were discussing an upcoming union contract) was Sunday morning. Like other places you clear out of your rooms by eleven, or noon, or get charged for another day. It's hard to imagine all of these cops sitting around for ten or twelve hours in the hot sun of the desert drinking beer and barbequing. If Fuhrman left early., that means that the others left later. Can you imagine a cop drinking beer for ten or twelve hours then driving two hours to Los Angeles and then go to work Monday morning? A quick phone call to the union would resolve this issue. Who was the head of the PPL at the time?
Enrique "Hank" Hernandez. I bet there are a few readers here who know who he is.
OJ, JFK and RFK
Did some googling, and it turns out that Enrique Hernandez, along with the better known Thane Eugene Cesar, were the two security guards on hand when RFK was shot to death in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in LA in 1968. Ironically, in the RFK case, the "official" theory of the case was that all the shots were fired front by Sirhan, a lone gunman in front, contrary to medical and ballistic evidence that the fatal shot came from the rear, whereas in the JFK case, the "official" theory was that all the shots were fired from the rear, by Oswald, whereas the photographic (i.e Zapruder film) and other evidence suggests that the fatal shot came from the front.
Talking about OJ, what convinced me it was probably a frame-up job was the excellent work done by defense team, notably Barry Scheck who was without doubt the best lawyer in the courtroom during that trial, in destroying the so-called "mountain of blood evidence" that was central to the prosecution case. I recall there were four major problems with that evidence: (1) the testimony of the nurse that established that roughly one quarter of Simpson's blood extracted as a reference sample was unaccounted for in the police records; (2) the presence of high levels of the preservative EDTA in the certain of the blood samples, specifically from Simpson's socks; (3) the dramatic before-and-after photos of the blood on the gate, the famous "where is it, Mr. Fung?" line during Scheck's brutal cross of the hapless supervising tech; and (4) much less dramatic, but equally important, the testimony of assistant tech Mazzola during the pre-Trial about how she initialed the blood samples collected at the crime scene, yet these samples that went to the lab for DNA testing that came back a 99.9999% match didn't contain her initials.
And of course the defense was able to call an FBI agent to discredit the credibility of one of the lead LAPD detectives (Vannatter); people always will remember Fuhrman for his racist comments, but Vannater was discredited as well.
Of course, the OJ "Dream Team" wasn't there for the civil case (with one exception, a guy named Blasier who wasn't that effective), and of course it was tried before a suburban lily white jury with a lesser standard of proof. But the case does indicate the importance of having a team of top notch defense attorneys.
1994
There were two new areas of scientific investigation that were used against Simpson. One was DNA, which the prosecution emphasized was undeniable. It WAS undeniable that it was OJ's blood but what was in question was how and when Simpson's blood got where it was "found". Finding EDTA meant that the blood came out of the tube of blood collected by Lange and Vannatter the day after the murders. After police hosed down the crime scene, including the back gate, someone sprinkling drops of Simpson's EDTA-laced blood on it was yet another clue left for investigators. The other was evidence focused on new scientific methods were the multiple photos of Simpson walking with Bruno Maglis after Simpson had denied owning such ugly shoes.
But the shoes led to other problems. The shoes, unlike what the prosecution asserted, were not size 12, the size of OJ's shoes. Being manufactured in Italy the shoes were sized more like 11 and a half, or 11 and three quarters. Just like the gloves that did not fit the shoes did not fit. When planning to commit a murder you don't choose shoes and gloves that are too small for you.
And while I agree that Barry Scheck was the most effective lawyer on the Simpson Team, overall the team had deep problems. I would point to F. Lee Bailey's appearance, merely to "prove" that white supremacist Mark Fuhrman used the "F-word".